Marc Lamont Hill Loses Job Fighting for the “Right” of Palestinians to Return to a “Country” Which Never Existed


Every since my collegiate days, from 1976-1980, when I was a Radio News Director, I have watched with stunned incredulity, as the American Liberal Political Ideology and its adherents, have vocally castigated the country of Israel for defending themselves against the violent factions of nomadic tribes , who wish for nothing else than their annihilation of both the country of Israel and their citizenry.

The irony of their naiveté, is the fact that, in the 1960’s, American Liberals were among some of Israel’s strongest supporters. However, as of this writing, they continue to blatantly back the Palestinians and the Terrorist Organization known as Hamas.

Opposing God’s Chosen People and supporting the historically nomadic people that call themselves “Palestinians” fits with Modern Liberals’ Political Ideology, which views modern political struggles as “Class Warfare”, being waged between race and ethnic groups. Liberals believe that the predominantly white West is  somehow subjugating the non-white rest of the world. This viewpoint is an extension of the class-based, rich versus poor, categories, which they intentionally classify people in, following the example of their fallen messiah, Former President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm)

For example… reports that

Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill, who was fired as a CNN contributor on Thursday, had earlier rejected criticism that his endorsement for “a free Palestine, from the river to the sea” amounted to a call for an end to Israel.

Elsewhere in his remarks – made at an annual U.N. meeting in support of the Palestinian cause – Hill also drew parallels with black Americans’ struggle, which he noted had gone beyond Gandhian non-violence, and said those supporting the Palestinian people should not shame them for “resisting.”

It is the “river to the sea” comment that has drawn most of the attention, however. A CNN spokesperson in response to an emailed query confirmed, “Marc Lamont Hill is no longer under contract with CNN.”

Addressing the U.N.’s “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People,” Hill condemned Israeli policies – using such terms as “ethnic cleansing” and “settler colonialism” – and voiced support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, before ending with the loaded phrase.

“We have an opportunity to not just offer solidarity in words but to commit to political action, grassroots action, local action and international action, that will give us what justice requires,” he concluded. “And that is a free Palestine, from the river to the sea.”

The expression is traditionally used to refer to Palestinian statehood from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, which would self-evidently spell an end to the world’s only Jewish state.

The slogan is popular at anti-Israel demonstrations around the world, and is frequently espoused by officials of Hamas and Fatah.

…Seeking to defend his comments on Twitter, Hill said that the “river to the sea” slogan “has a variety of meanings” and was and is “a phrase used by many factions, ideologies, movements, and politicians.”

The slogan “has never been the exclusive province of a particular ideological camp. The idea that this is a Hamas phrase is simply untrue.”

“My reference to ‘river to the sea’ was not a call to destroy anything or anyone,” Hill tweeted. “It was a call for justice, both in Israel and in the West Bank/Gaza.”

…In one section of his speech, Hill voiced support for Palestinians “resisting” and noted that in their struggle against discrimination African Americans did not use exclusively non-violent means.

“Contrary to Western mythology, black resistance to American apartheid did not come purely through Gandhian non-violence. Rather, slave revolts and self-defense and tactics otherwise divergent from Dr. [Martin Luther] King or Mahatma Gandhi were equally important to preserving safety and attaining freedom,” he said.

The Palestinians should be allowed “the same range of opportunity,” he said.

“If we are standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people we must recognize the right of an occupied people to defend itself,” Hill continued.

“We must prioritize peace – but we must not romanticize or fetishize it.”

“We must advocate and promote non-violence at every opportunity – but we cannot endorse a narrow politics of respectability that shames Palestinians for resisting, for refusing to do nothing in the face of state violence and ethnic cleansing.”

In the Israeli-Palestinian context, “resistance” has long-established associations with violence against Israelis.

U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah style themselves part of the “resistance front.” (Hamas is an acronym for the Arabic name “Islamic Resistance Movement.”)

Factions’ statements hailing as martyrs those killed while carrying out attacks refer regularly to their “resistance” actions – which can include lethal shootings and stabbings, the firing of missiles from Gaza, and suicide bombings.

According to the Israeli foreign ministry, at least 3,159 Israelis have been killed, and many more wounded, in terror attacks carried out by Palestinian “resistance” groups since 1948.

Professor Hill is advocating for a nomadic people to “return” to a country which never existed.


The term “Palestine” (Falastin in Arabic) was an ancient name for the general geographic region that is more or less today’s Israel. The name derives from the Philistines, who originated from the eastern Mediterranean, and invaded the region in the 11th and 12th centuries B.C. The Philistines were apparently either from Greece, Crete, the Aegean Islands, and/or Ionia. They seem to be related to the Bronze Age Greeks, and they spoke a language akin to Mycenaean Greek. Their descendents, still living on the shores of the Mediterranean, greeted Roman invaders a thousand years later. The Romans corrupted the name to “Palestina,” and the area under the sovereignty of their city-states became known as “Philistia.” Six-hundred years later, the Arab invaders called the region “Falastin.”

Throughout subsequent history, the name remained only a vague geographical entity. There was never a nation of “Palestine,” never a people known as the “Palestinians,” nor any notion of “historic Palestine.” The region never enjoyed any sovereign autonomy, remaining instead under successive foreign sovereign domains from the Umayyads and Abbasids to the Fatimids, Ottomans, and British.

During the centuries of Ottoman rule, no Arabs under Turkish rule made any attempt to formulate an ideology of national identity, least of all the impoverished Arab peasantry in the region today known as Israel.

The term “Palestinian,” ironically, was used during the British Mandate period (1922-1948) to identify the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine. The Arabs of the area were known as “Arabs,” and their own designation of the region was balad esh-Sham (the province of Damascus). While some Arab nationalist writers, and coffee-shop intellectuals in Cairo or Beirut, developed the concept of Arab nationalism in large part as a response to Zionism, the terms “Palestine” and “Palestinian” were used in their traditional sense as geographic designations, not as national identities.

In early 1947, in fact, when the UN was exploring the possibility of the partition of British Mandatory Palestine into two states, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs, various Arab political and academic spokespersons spoke out vociferously against such a division because, they argued, the region was really a part of southern Syria, no such people or nation as “Palestinians” had ever existed, and it would be an injustice to Syria to create a state ex nihilo at the expense of Syrian sovereign territory.

I can remember the first time I saw Professor Marc Lamont Hill. It was on The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News.

Hill was your typical know-it-all Liberal Talking Head, a personality which made it all the more satisfying when O’Reilly made him look positively silly every time he appeared on his program.

Hill’s anti-Semitism is an example of the rampant anti-Semitism which is pervasive among today’s Far Left Liberal Democrats.

The false equivalencies which have been thrown about, for the last few decades all over the cable news channels and the internet by Liberal Pundits, paid and unpaid, trying to justify the murderous cowardly actions of the Palestinian Terrorist Organization, Hamas, boggle the mind of any rational, well-informed American.

While Israel has been one of our nations staunchest allies since their birth as a nation in 1948, Hamas, who took over for the Palestinian Liberation Organization, hates our ever-loving guts, and would behead every single American, man or woman, adult or child, without any regret whatsoever. Because to them, we are infidels, and “The Great Satan”, against which they are waging a “Holy Jihad”, not to mention the fact that Israel is our closest ally.

For Liberals, like the Former Cable News Political Pundit, Professor Mac Lamont Hill to support murders and to advocate for a “nation” which never even existed is nothing but an exercise in stupid, dangerous naiveté for the sake of a political ideology…

…and proves that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Until He Comes,